(News)
(News)
Line 313: Line 313:
 
:There is only one curator...<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 
:There is only one curator...<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 
::There Are Two On The News Page.<scratchsig>Mrsrec</scratchsig> 15:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 
::There Are Two On The News Page.<scratchsig>Mrsrec</scratchsig> 15:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 +
:::WASDgamer And AmayaCreates. But Right Now NEITHER Of Them Are Curator. Unresalistation, Or Whatever The Name Is, Is Curator.
  
 
== New April Fools' Day Idea ==
 
== New April Fools' Day Idea ==

Revision as of 15:06, 2 February 2014

Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!
Shortcuts:
SWT:CP
S:CPORTAL
S:CPTALK
S:PORTAL
S:PORTTALK
S:TALK

We recommend that before you ask a question, you search the archives first to make sure it has not been answered before:





Archives (oldest first)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103
If you do not think a discussion is done, you can move it to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done.
Size of Community Portal: 100,950 bytes.

Click the button below to leave a message!
Make sure it has a descriptive title so people can see what you're talking about in a glance.


If your topic is a request for admin action, please post it at Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Admin Requests.

How to edit on the Scratch Wiki

We recommend that before you create your question, you read these tips to editing on the Scratch Wiki.

  • Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) after your post.
  • To do various text formatting, follow the following rules, rather than using any other text-editing methods:
    • Make text bold with '''text'''.
    • Make text italics with ''text''.
    • Make text bold and italics with '''''text'''''.
    • Make a link to a page outside of this wiki with [http://www.example.com link text] or {{plain link|1=http://www.example.com|2=link text}} if you don't want the Link icon.png symbol to appear (remember http:// prefix).
    • Make a link to an article on this wiki with [[Page name]] or [[Page name|Link text]].
    • Make a link to a Wikipedia article with [[Wikipedia:Page name]] or [[Wikipedia:Page name|Link text]].
    • Indent a paragraph by putting a colon (:) before it.
    • For more, see the help page on formatting.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • Always remember to be polite and respectful, assume good faith, and be welcoming, while following the Scratch Community Guidelines.
  • When creating a new post, mark it as No Not done by putting {{not done}} at the top. Once the conversation has been resolved, replace it with {{done}} (producing Yes Done).

The Scratch Forum Guidelines

During my moderator checkin, when i agreed to retire, i talked to Lightnin a bit about a problem i've noticed on the forums: Newbies don't follow the rules. Why is this? The simple answer is that there isn't a single collection of the rules. I therefore proposed the Forum Guidelines, written in the style of the Community Guidelines, but specific to the forums. He suggested we work on it on the wiki.

I can think of a few rules to start out with:

Post in the right section. 
Read the forum descriptions to make sure that your topic is in the right place. This helps keep the forums organized and helpful.
Search before posting. 
If you take one minute to do a quick search before making a new topic, this can save many duplicate topics from being created.
Read the stickies. 
The "sticky" topics contain useful information for a specific forum. It is wise to read them, especially the ones called "Read this before posting".
Don't necropost. 
Necroposting is when someone posts an unhelpful message on an old topic (general consensus is over one month inactive).

I know some of them need to be improved. Anyone have any more to add? Remember to keep each item (as well as the whole list) short and concise.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

How about expanding Scratch Rules?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe
Don't spam. 
Spamming is posting something irrelevant to the topic or using an excessive amount of smileys and unneeded symbols.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't spam — good one. I forgot about Scratch Rules, thanks. Except i think we should have a separate page for this.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't report problems with other users on the forums. 
If another Scratcher is bothering you, please report them to the Scratch Team. Posting about it on the forums, especially using names, dramatizes the conflict, and is not helpful. These topics are always closed.
^ I know, that's a little long. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the wording of that last one (the title of it) because someone may interpret it as if someone is doing something bad, don't report the problem and leave it alone. It sounds like "if another user is causing a problem, don't report it". I'd change it to "If someone breaks the above rules, report the post".
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think "When reporting users " is a better title, mainly due to how it's shorter. I also agree with Turkey3; the rule does sound a bit like trouble users shouldn't be reported. (though @Turkey, this is if someone breaks a rule on the website, not in the forums)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
When reporting users 
If you have any sort of problem with another user, simply report them. Projects, comments, and forum posts all have a report button, as well as user profile pages.
Sorry about that disappearing act. I haven't been keeping it open, so i *cough* sort of forgot.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't Be Irrelevant
Also, please don't go around posting irrelevant thing on iTopics. I have seen that recently and I think that it wastes everybody's time.
Fmtfmtfmt2 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple bot tasks I could do

Several people have created bots to check existing pages for problems. I am considering writing one to check new changes. It would check for stuff like this:

  • Edit warring
  • Excessive small edits to one page
  • Users not signing their posts
  • Bad links
  • Invalid formatting

What does everyone think? I could write a bot to check for these (and automatically notify users for at least some of them) pretty quickly so users don't go on making the same mistake. I also have a server running, so I could put the bot there and have it running the vast majority of the time.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking, if you insert your bot, then the bots that check existing pages can't do anything anymore eventually!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Mine mostly just checks for stuff that should be fixed quickly, like edit warring, repaeted edits, not signing posts, etc. If your bot already checks for bad links and invalid formatting, then I'll just take care of the first three listed above.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok that would be puurfect! (reference to your signature picture :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting work on it now. It's WikiMonitor. (I copied you for the userpage).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure! Good luck on the bot!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy, that second one may make the bot not like me. I always edit a page, and just as I'm ready to leave I find something wrong. I hope by "excessive" you mean someone intentionally trying to get more edits.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
On the bot's user page, I included the definition of everything I am doing. For "excessive editing", it is "over 10 in 1 hour". If you have any suggestions on better criteria for that, please let me know soon before I start coding that part.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That all sounds reasonable. Good luck!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
What will happen is the bot will detect KrIsMa's bot because it makes an edit like every 3 minutes. You'll have to program a white list so it can't detect User:VoxBot.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I just tested the part that checks for post signing, and it found 8 people forget to sign posts in the last 500 edits, of which 6 were correct. Currently it defines not signing a post as this: a non-minor edit that adds 50 or more characters to a page that already has other users' signatures that does not contain "(UTC)" anywhere in the part that was added. Does anybody have a better definition I can use? Remember that I need a clear definition that I can turn into code and all I have is the information stated above (what text was added in the edit I am looking at, the size difference between old and new, whether the edit was marked as minor, and the contents of the page).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Good start! Maybe you could make it so it needs to detect (UTC), the RevisionUser.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I added that, but the problem here is not that it's not detecting signatures properly. The problem is that it's not always able to tell what isn't a new post.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You could use the semicolons to check if it is a new post. If something like this happens:

Hi (signed)

Hello (signed)
Goodbye (not signed)
What? (signed)

Then the bot knows. Then,

Hi (signed)

Hello (signed)
Goodbye (not signed)
What? (not signed)

The bot reads until there is a new header or the end of the page, then realizes that those 2 comments are not signed. Also, New posts start from a semicolon

hi!

or from the edge

hi!

Therefore, new posts are easy to find. For example, you can see where the new post starts in the markup language.

hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post

Or:

hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post (signed)

hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post (not signed)

hope I helped

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the colons were helpful. The latest time I ran it, 1/5 of the detected non-signings within the last 500 edits were false positives. The false positive I can't figure out how to get around is this: [1]. My current definition is now this: an edit that adds more than 70 characters to a talk page that already contains another user's signature on it, and at least one of the lines added to the edit starts with a colon or the text "new section" is in the edit comment, and it does not contain <scratchsig> or /sig anywhere in it (case-insensitive).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I've seen some pretty short messages on talk pages, such as "Ok", "Ew", "Lol", etc.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

vox bot

I have encountered a lot of vague errors from my bot, would you guys want the header "See Also" to be 'See Also' or 'See also'? my bot really wants to change it to 'See also', as it makes more sense (all wikis except ours [like wikipedia] use See also)

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally prefer "See Also" because it is a header, so all words besides articles and little things should be capitalized. Lowercase just looks wrong in titles.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
We resolved to keep it capitalized, i think.
Also, could you please not run the bot until you get it in the bot group? Thanks.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I asked scmb1 to add VoxBot and WikiMonitor to the bot user group.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
OK! PS, thanks jvvg and scmb1!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
WikiMonitor and VoxBot are now bots.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Any other ideas for what WikiMonitor can do?

Currently, my bot, WikiMonitor is patrolling recent changes to find users not signing their posts and excessive edits to one page (I decided not to implement checking for edit warring because I've never actually seen it happen in my time on the Wiki). Does anybody have any other ideas for what it can do? Remember that it needs to be something that I can turn into a specific definition in PHP.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How about a user signing or writing (though there are very rare exceptions when the editor's username may be in an article) his or her name in an article (not the talk page but main article)? The bot could check if the person making the edit placed his/her own name into the article.

Edit: Dope! Your bot's gonna get me since I just forgot my sig.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Has that happened a bunch recently? If so, it shouldn't be too hard to add (just search for "<scratchsig>" in the diff).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Not much that I can think of (WikiMonitor got me for the post above :P ), but it could come in handy sometimes. However, it shouldn't automatically remove the username, because in some cases it is alright, like how Scratch Logos says I created the New Years image.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently making it not notify users if they immediately fix not signing their post.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:08, 13 January 2014‎ (UTC)
Now a user has between 30 and 120 seconds to fix their post, depending on when in the edit cycle the edit is detected.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a username, but if they sign, WikiMonitor could remove it and report it to them.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

S:STARTREK

http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/w/index.php?title=S:STARTREK&redirect=no should not be the name for the redirect, because think of it this way, someone edits the wiki that has unnessasary edits, such as making a atricle about dogs. an admin deletes it, and posts this up on their user page:

Hello, someone,
you have created an article that breaks the S:STARTREK rule.
Please don't do it again. Thanks!
SIGNATURE

The first thing that the user that sees this message will think, is "What is S:STARTREK? Is it something related to the article I just made? ~~~"
A better title would be S:UNRELATED, or something like that.
Yay! :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a cute name, but we could probably have a second shortcut with a more descriptive title as well. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Variables Template Idea

Whenever writing the name of a variable in an article, such as

"y velocity"

I always feel like quotes just don't justify the need to point out that the article is speaking of a variable. What if we had a template kind of like a but more rounded and orange just like a variable?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Here is an example of a in an article. Code:
{{var|name}}

What's nice about it is that it does not push the text margin above and below it larger, so the lines are still the same (if that makes sense). I can also make the text smaller if need be. (y velocity) Like it? For example, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ........................................... Bla bla bla sorry for this spam text bla bla bla bla What's nice about it is that it does not push the text margin above and below it larger, so the lines are still the same (if that makes sense). I can also make the text smaller if need be.

See? The line spacing is same.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

cool! great job with the variable!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You mean like (y velocity)? :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh... Yeah, except the one above is a bit large.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's scratchblocks. Can't really change it. :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Blob on just using the inline sb.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
let us have a vote to keep it or not!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, not another vote :P when you were gone, we went through enough voting. I say delete the template admin. However, that brings up a new question. Which is better to use for a variable: quotations, or an inline block?
And there's one problem with online variables, and it's that they have a margin on the bottom.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── lol ok no vote lets just discuss it :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think inline blocks are nice, but I may be biased. Certainly I agree with you to use something special, and not quotes or monospaced text (this is Scratch, after all!). We can probably fix scratchblocks if that needs doing -- although I already spent ages tweaking the bottom margins to match the line height for all the different kinds of block :P Is it the same across all the other blocks? Would shifting the margins for all of them help?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 01:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
For comparison, Brian uses inline block pictures in his (excellent) Snap! manual. Try page 7, for example: http://snap.berkeley.edu/SnapManual.pdf
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 01:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @blob8108: I agree with you; the inline blocks do look very nice. They really help make code look like a code and not some text because Scratch is very visual orientated. I don't like how it messes up line spacing though; it'd be nice if that could be tweaked. So yes, shifting margins would help.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell, if we decide to use inline blocks instead of quotations for a variable name, we need:
  • inline variables margin fixed
  • to edit a lot of articles (which I would not mind)

But maybe quotations are actually better. If you say the name of a variable many many times in a paragraph with inline blocks, it could get too colorful. It'll be like a bowl of lucky charms spilt into a pot of gold at sunrise.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd use common sense; use the inline block the first time, and say "the variable" or refer to it by name from then on, if it gets too excessive.
And I did already spend ages tweaking the inline block stylings. I can shift the blocks down a bit in the line, but I think the line spacing will still be larger. :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I edited turkey3's example above. I don't think it's too bad. :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I change my mind on this; the line spacing around orange variables will be a bit out of place, but it doesn't look bad.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Election?

So far I see two active experienced wikians and two active admin. Should there be more?

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think what we have right now is sufficient.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Should have come in August (or was it September?)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I recall that they said it's just whenever we think we need another admin. However, I wouldn't mind another election so I have another shot at being an admin. ;)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Isn't Hardmath next on the list? ;)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd upgrade people if I could and I actually felt we needed more admins for such a small editing community. We aren't Wikipedia.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@blob8108, I'm not sure. I haven't seen Hardmath on in a while. According to his contributions list, he hasn't made an edit in over a month, and before that the edits were pretty spread out timewise. I know this is kind of self-promotion, but I really do think I would be a good admin because I spend a lot of time on the Wiki and am pretty effective at patrolling recent changes and taking necessary action. Although being an EW helps with that (for example, being able to delete pages), there are still a few privileges that would make me more effective at helping the Wiki.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@KrIsMa: I'm not sure if you included me, but I'm still here.
@jvvg: I agree, you are a helpful Wikian and all, but how many wikians do we need to update the front page? Plus, every other admin privilege isn't even used much, and I feel that Mathfreak231 can handle it great. I'd say no to another election.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with jvvg. No more elections. And also, we can't refer back to the election results from Scratch Wiki:Elections/September 2013 because they are old now and we have newer active users who would be able run. Anyways, no elections now. Why not make them a yearly thing every September? It could be the Scratch Wiki Annual Elections. :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ok and are sig images broken?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@Turkey3: You do know that jvvg is the one for another election? Anyway, I'm not sure we're big enough of a group to need annual elections. Plus, if we don't need anyone new by the time September rolls around, then why have the election? @KrIsMa: On my end they are. Those amazon servers must be under some load right now.
Edit: The sigs are back.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant I agree with you, Ernie.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah i know why. Scratch main website was down for a while. Now it is up!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The sigs are gone again. I'm no sure that the disappearing/reappearing of our sigs is because of the main website.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure sigs and other website images are hosted on different servers outside MIT. I know this because to get the URL of a sig, the address begins with cdn.scratch.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

autoconfirm

is the default usergroup for new users the group "Users" and also "Autoconfirmed" users? or do people need to earn the right |Autoconfirmed"? thanks

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is something that happens automatically.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I think on Wikipedia, "Autoconfirmed" means they've confirmed your email address. Or you've been around for some length of time. Something that we don't actually use, anyhow.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I think on the Scratch Wiki it's given right away to new users because of the account request system.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

New Curator!

The new curator is AmayaCreates.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 07:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

April Fools Preparation

I know you're probably groaning, but I really think the Wiki should have the most incredible April Fools prank ever. What will that be? Have you seen User:Mathfreak231/UnScratchWiki? That's what progress there is so far, personally I hope that about 50 of our most popular articles have joke forms made. But aside from that, we all know that we still want the real articles available. So which will be the default— the real article for people who want information, or the joke one for people to get pranked? I created a template called Template:Fools with this code (scroll to see all):

{{#ifexpr: {{CURRENDAY}} = 1 and {{CURRENTMONTH}} = 4|
<div style="background-color:#9CDEFF; border:1px solid #66D4E3; text-align:center; border-top-left-radius:10px; border-top-right-radius:10x; padding: 4px; font-size:20px; margin-bottom: 25px">'''Real Page''' – [[{{{1}}}|Fools Page]]</div>}}

And I apologize for not discussing the template first here, but when I get really into something I can't wait. So, to break apart the code for you, it first checks if it is April Fools Day. If it is not, then nothing happens and the article is exactly the same. However, if it is April Fools Day, the content within will be shown. What is that content, you ask? A nice pretty border with two things inside: Main Article and a link to the joke article. Notice the parameter in the template. The only parameter is a link to the joke article. Therefore, any pages that have joke forms made about them, this template can be used to automatically provide a link to the joke article when April Fools Day strikes. The template can be placed at the top of the page. A similar template can be made to do the reverse— link to the real articles from the joke ones. Here's what it really looks like:

Real PageFools Page

Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
In my own opinion, I think the wiki should be the way it is. This is because I don't think it is a good idea to have an April fools day joke on the Scratch Website and the wiki. It just seems a bit overboard. I literally would go like (uhhh, why!!!!) if I was someone who wanted to learn a bit more about Scratch via the Wiki on April Fools Day. This is my opinion :) Sorry if I am mean to people who want it:P
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but still disagree XD the point is, people would still see the entire wiki as it normally is. However, they would have an option to view the joke form of an article if it exists, so if they don't want to, they don't need to. And have you not read them so far? I die out in laughter.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand you, too. Let me have a look at them :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I personally would go so far as to say make the fools page the default!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Ehh, ok! We can replace User:Mathfreak231/UnScratchWiki home page with it, if he is ok with it :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol, I might prefer to wait until we have a few more pages. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, but it'd be funny seeing it implemented. :P
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

citation needed

should i make an organization category for any pages with the {{citation needed}} template? thanks! edit(maybe a hidden category)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Citation needed
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Wait, should be http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Citation_needed&hidelinks=1
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Would You like this template? [2]

Pencil.png Please remember to sign your posts, as this is important!
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 11:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

We had a couple templates like that, but as we all experienced images are a bit intimidating to new users and the rest you can just type yourself.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There used to be a template for this, however it was deleted by Lucario621, saying "If a user forgets their signature, it's better to just fix it and tell them, rather then giving them a warning template".
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

should we use the unsigned template or sign posts for people?

I sign posts for people then notify them, but some people use the template {{Unsigned}}. I sign for people because using the template means you know who made the unsigned post, and might as well sign it for people! Thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I use the Unsigned template when I don't want to go through the trouble of getting a timestamp from the page history.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Unable to cite many things on old site

A bunch of articles about the old site have the citation needed template somewhere in them. However, a lot of the necessary citations would be on the forums, which no longer exist.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't you go to the archive forums at http://archive.scratch.mit.edu/forums/? Sorry idk if the link is deleted because I'm on mobile ;-)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The old forums archive was closed down a while ago without any announcement.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't you have a copy of the archive jvvg? If you don't have it then I'd think leaving the citations be would be fine. They still show that something has been proved, and we had enough wiki users before the archive shut down that we know the sources are credible. Besides, the other option would be to repost ever single old citation as a question in the forums, and hope some people remember.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I do still have a copy of the archive, but I don't have any means to make it publicly available besides posting ZIP files of individual topics. What I meant the solution should be is to remove the "citation needed" template for stuff that can only be cited on the old forums.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we should keep the "citation needed" to show the readers that we are knowledgable of what material may be questioned.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we need to change the old citations. The forum archives might come back online eventually.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the old forums archive is coming back online. Lightnin said that there are a lot of security concerns with it and that keeping the archive open is too large a risk. (source). (Also, although PHP is a bit harder than Python, it's not any less secure than Python.)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

please delete

please delete User:KrIsMa/Pages and User:KrIsMa/Page2! Sorry I can't put the delete header into the page for the exact reason why I want to delete it, because:

  1. It usually takes 2 refreshes to load the page
  2. It categorizes in categorizing pages
  3. No use!

Thanks!!!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. :)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!!! Yay feels good to make the scratch wiki 1 millisecond faster!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we allow collab or group accounts?

Someone asked me about this, and I think that the answer should be no because of the alt account rule. Should I make an exception for collabs or should I specifically state in the rules that we don't allow group accounts? Again, I don't feel that we should because of the no alt rule, and when multiple users are using one account, it starts to get complicated to tell who is responsible for what changes, especially when the different users have different experience levels.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Each member of the collab/group can get their own wiki account.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambig

Shouldn't Size Be A Disambiguation Page, Not Redirect To The Block?

Also, Anyone Mind If I Archive The CP?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 04:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there's only two things it could refer to and the block is the most common thing that people would search for plus it's super easy to get to the other one from the link at the top.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, the CP was archived fairly recently (active discussions were not archived). Please don't.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

AmayaCreates

curator is AmayaCreates!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Done
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year!

hehe ill give it a try -> Gung Hey Fat Choy! sorry i might of spelt it wrong
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

新年好
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 04:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you speak Chinese? Cool!!! Happy new Chinese year and have lots of red pouches of good luck!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No way, and it'd honestly be the last I'd speak. Memorizing some 3,000 characters is hard! I use Google translate ;) and what are Chinese keyboards like?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Chinese keyboards have keys that have Chinese characters on them. You can combine those Chinese letters into one character to get one word! Woo! Some keyboards use pinyin (how the word sounds like) and some lets you write the Chinese letters yourself (like on iPads) :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

News

Since When Were There Two Curators?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 18:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There is only one curator...
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
There Are Two On The News Page.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
WASDgamer And AmayaCreates. But Right Now NEITHER Of Them Are Curator. Unresalistation, Or Whatever The Name Is, Is Curator.

New April Fools' Day Idea

Instead Of The Fools Template, Oh I'll Just Make An Example.(I Forgot To Sign This Post)


Alright, Here It Is: Let's Say That We Wanna Parody AFExample.

We'd Make A Subpage Of AprilFools, Being AprilFools/AFExample.


There Would Be The Parody, With The Following Text At The Top:

{{warning|The wiki has been changed for april fools day. Don't take anything here seriously. You can get the original at}} [http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/AFExample?action=edit This Page]

Check Out AFExample To See What I Mean.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 19:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If we do something like that, then it won't be as funny.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. I Agree. Later I'll Post With A New Idea.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)